Please explain to me where "social justice" is in the Constitution?

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by Glitch

Secondly, the Supreme Court already shot down that BS "General Welfare Clause" argument 76 years ago.

Obviously no such power was ever intended. The power granted to Congress in Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 is "to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises," not to do whatever they please.

Yes, that's useful, to cherry-pick a paragraph from the decision without providing any context. You may elaborate upon this when you decide to get serious about the discussion.

[EddieB.Good]

Originally Posted by Glitch

I will play. There is no federal "Castle Doctrine," that is something only the States are empowered to employ.

You don't have a separate set of rights for state vs fed actions. My point still stands.

However, the meaning and intent of the phrase "to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States" in Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the US Constitution is a good debate. One that has been occurring since Madison and Hamilton.

It should be noted that the USSC upheld Madison's "limited government" argument in United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936). As far as the Supreme Court is concerned, there is no such thing as "The General Welfare Clause." It is the power to levy taxes for the purpose of upholding and enforcing the following seventeen other enumerated powers. Nothing more.

Yes it has been going on since the Founding Fathers. That's why we need to look at what they did to see how they interpreted the words they wrote. At worst, it's a moot point to try to bring their intent into things b/c they were as divided on the reach of the Fed gov't as we are. At best, even as divided as they were when the drafted the Constitution, they intentionally left the powers of the gov't ambiguous and flexible to allow the role to gov't to grow in the best way for its citizenry.

[Randomstudent]

Originally Posted by Glitch

I will play. There is no federal "Castle Doctrine," that is something only the States are empowered to employ.



However, the meaning and intent of the phrase "to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States" in Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the US Constitution is a good debate. One that has been occurring since Madison and Hamilton.

It should be noted that the USSC upheld Madison's "limited government" argument in United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936). As far as the Supreme Court is concerned, there is no such thing as "The General Welfare Clause." It is the power to levy taxes for the purpose of upholding and enforcing the following seventeen other enumerated powers. Nothing more.

It should also be noted that US v. Butler was severely qualified see South Dakota v. Dole 483 U.S. 203 (1987) and Steward Machine co. v. Davis 301 U.S. 548 (1937).

If you study law the first thing you should know is that a if a case was decided between 1895-1937(pre West Coast Hotel) it's Lochnerian and likely to have been overruled or qualified.

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by Randomstudent

It should also be noted that US v. Butler was severely qualified see South Dakota v. Dole 483 U.S. 203 (1987) and Steward Machine co. v. Davis 301 U.S. 548.

If you study law the first thing you should know is that a if a case was decided between 1895-1937(pre west coast hotel) its Lochnerian and likely to have been overruled or qualified.

GO, TEAM!

[Glitch]

Originally Posted by EddieB.Good

You don't have a separate set of rights for state vs fed actions. My point still stands.

Of course you do. It is the States and the people with all the rights, not the federal government. The federal government was given specific enumerated powers by the States when they ratified the US Constitution in 1789. The States further clarified their intent by ratifying the Tenth Amendment in 1791.

Originally Posted by EddieB.Good

Yes it has been going on since the Founding Fathers. That's why we need to look at what they did to see how they interpreted the words they wrote. At worst, it's a moot point to try to bring their intent into things b/c they were as divided on the reach of the Fed gov't as we are. At best, even as divided as they were when the drafted the Constitution, they intentionally left the powers of the gov't ambiguous and flexible to allow the role to gov't to grow in the best way for its citizenry.

As I have already mentioned, the US Supreme Court has already heard all the arguments on both sides and sided with Madison. The US Constitution is a limitation on the powers of both the federal government and the States. Not an excuse to exercise unlimited power. Without such limitations there would be no need for the US Constitution to exist.

[EddieB.Good]

Originally Posted by Glitch

First, Congress enacts the laws, not Presidents.

And? Jefferson still supported this role of gov't. He's the Right's go to for being a strict Constitutionalist, yet he had no objections to it when it was being introduced, and strengthened it while he was in office.

Second, Congress also enacted the Alien & Sedition Act in the same year, which also blatantly violated the First Amendment of the US Constitution, ratified just 7 years earlier.

And it was actively opposed hence its repeal soon after. This strengthens my argument b/c the public & opposing sides were actively on the look out for limiting gov't power, yet had no qualms w/ this passing.

Lastly, what you think a Vice President has to do with levying an unconstitutional tax, I have absolutely no idea.

Being VP doesn't stop you from being opposed to a law. Many of the early VPs openly opposed laws supported by their President. And then when you win the Presidency, you now have the postion to lead the undoing or weakening of something a previous President did. Seeing as neither holds true for Jefferson, what does that say about the strict Constitutionalist's support of what would be seen as a law promoting the general welfare?

Before you think the President must sign all laws, go read Article I, Section 7, Clause 2 of the US Constitution. Legislation is enacted into law automatically ten calendar days (excluding Sundays) after Congress passes them, while they are in session.

What does this have to do w/ anything?

Originally Posted by Glitch

Of course you do. It is the States and the people with all the rights, not the federal government. The federal government was given specific enumerated powers by the States when they ratified the US Constitution in 1789. The States further clarified their intent by ratifying the Tenth Amendment in 1791.

So you're saying that technically there are ways for your state to violate your personal rights, but not the Fed gov't... Really? Could you give me an example where your personal rights apply differently in relation to the Fed & state?

As I have already mentioned, the US Supreme Court has already heard all the arguments on both sides and sided with Madison. The US Constitution is a limitation on the powers of both the federal government and the States. Not an excuse to exercise unlimited power. Without such limitations there would be no need for the US Constitution to exist.

And rulings since have supported general welfare being more than just the strict limitations of enumerated powers. You can't just pick and choose which decisions you're okay w/ especially when that choice ignores subsequent rulings that oppose or reverse what you're putting out.